Blog share: Why should we worry about John Hemming?

If you’ve been following the Hoaxtead saga for any amount of time, you’ll know that Sabine McNeill and Belinda McKenzie’s ‘Association of McKenzie Friends’ is at the heart of the story.

After Ella Gareeva Draper had fired her legal team for the umpteenth time, Belinda became her McKenzie friend, and began offering her unique advice on the case. And it was Sabine, acting on Ella’s instructions, who initially released the videos of the children reciting the horrific details of alleged ‘cult abuse’.

Their Association of McKenzie Friends was able to claim some semblance of legitimacy via the patronage of two (at that time) sitting members of Parliament: John Hemming and Austin Mitchell.

Hemming resigned this august position on January 22, 2015, just around the time of Sabine’s initial leak of the videos.

According to him, he “personally advised Sabine McNeill in writing to withdraw from the (Hampstead) case”, but this does not answer the question of why he’d allowed himself to become entangled in this organisation in the first place. Nor has he ever publicly condemned them, or apologised for his own involvement.

In fact, as family lawyer Sarah Phillimore has pointed out, he refuses to admit he might have been wrong to support Belinda and Sabine:

John Hemming continues to refuse to accept he was unwise to ever offer Sabine McNeill his patronage. https://t.co/X6Fj5fA25n

I told Sabine McNeill directly what what was being done over Hoaxsted was wrong. I have said this publicly on a number of occasions. However, people seem to be happy to deny this even though it is obviously the case that I have been publicly critical of what the Associationn of McKenzie friends did on the Hampstead case.

I got involved because they asked me to get involved and on those occasions I had seen what they were doing it did appeared generally OK. There are issues about access to justice and have been for some time (notwithstanding changes to Legal Aid).

I find it odd that you’d think their activities were ‘generally OK’–I looked through their list of cases, and their grossly inaccurate representations of the child welfare system, and decided early on that they were most definitely not ‘generally OK’.

I said a long time ago now, that nothing is going to change in the Child Abuse Industry until all the in-fighting and the conspiracy theory stops. I would have instantly withdrawn my support is someone had suggested Satanic Ritual Abuse and any other Moral Panics or conspiracy theory were raised in any debate. Credibility is everything if you wish to be taken seriously, particularly by your opponents.

When I first saw the video of the children alleging abuse, I rubbished it immediately. I said that whoever coached those children should be arrested for child abuse. Naturally I was decried by everyone as an abuser myself, which is characteristic of people who are losing arguments and debate and their only response is ad hominen attacks.

Blogs like this are dangerous to our cause, It shows the infighting and the mentality of damaged people with agendas. I respect what Sabine has accomplished, particularly with the EU. But I have also seen John Hemming attacked many times, always unfairly in my opinion. How many other MP’s have actually stood up in Parliament and risked their credibility to expose the corrupt Child Abuse Industry? You could count them on one hand. Other than Tim Yeo MP who spoke about 1 case only, there was one other MP who escapes my memory. Rather than everyone getting behind John, there are hundreds of self appointed damaged individuals firing off in all directions, sometimes killing people on their side as “Friendly Fire”.

In my own case I gave up because I couldn’t get any support. I had an International Organisation ready to go in 4 countries with funding but couldn’t find people to get behind it. I wrote a book entitled Secret Courts and sent out copies to many people and didn’t get many replies or feedback.

So just keep fighting among yourselves and bad-mouthing good people and writing blogs bordering on defamation about people who genuinely could turn around the whole Child Abuse Industry. Meanwhile social services, children’s NGO’s and lawyers are raking in billions while many of you are doing more damage to your own cause than they could ever do.

Thanks, Jake–you took the words from my mouth…er, keyboard. You know what I mean.

Joe, I hardly think it’s either destructive or defamatory (borderline or otherwise) to hold people accountable for what they do or say in a public forum. Mr Hemming has not been shy about diving in and defending himself here. Whether he’s been successful I’ll leave the readers to decide, but we certainly wouldn’t deny him his right to clarify his stance (or not) in his own words.

I’m glad to hear you caught onto the Hampstead hoax early on. Unfortunately, many did not see it quite so clearly, and were duped into believing the lies of Abe, Ella, and their McKenzie friends at the time. This blog exists to debunk the hoax, as well as to provide a forum for those with an interest in the case. If that does not include you, I fully understand.

If there is credible evidence, I’d be surprised, but it wouldn’t mean what the mother claimed in this case is true anyway. And even if there was such a concept bandied about, Christian ritual abuse isn’t a thing, abuse is the crime whatever religion people follow, or paraphernalia or religious justification people try to use.

I found this document victim focussed and very clear headed even though it almost a quarter century old:

So we have established that SRA is nonsense, good. Anyone who doubts this should read a book entitled “Michelle Remembers” published in 1979 which started the myth of SRA. The book also invented Fractured and Recovered Memory Syndrome which is still used to prosecute innocent people today. It also created two of the largest witch hunts and moral panics of our time. In short, it’s nonsense.

So it would appear that Sabine and many other believe in SRA while it’s obvious that John does not, which is why he disassociated himself from the McKF organisation. If John had publicly denounced Sabine, it would have affected her and his credibility. Everyone has the right to protect their reputation.

What I’m struggling to understand is how John is responsible for actions and people who are not under his control? I have fought social workers at case conferences and in court whose thought processes work this way, guilt by association and the accusation is the only evidence. Does John possess the power of mind control? Did he also cause Global Warming?

I’m also curious how you believe that attacking good people like John and in-fighting, helps your cause? Over the years I have seen advocates and my colleagues attacked by damaged people who didn’t get their way. I have even seen my colleagues been physically attacked, in one case an old man in poor heath attacked by 2 vigilantes who later served a jail sentence for their actions. I was accused of running a child trafficking ring in Spain for Irish authorities, apparently from my caravan, by a dangerous woman who lost 3 children because I refused to help her, I only take cases where I can win. I was attacked by another woman because I refuse to take drug & substance abuse cases.

The whole Child Abuse Industry is a self protecting ecosystem. You don’t see in-fighting or negative posts by social workers or people in the Industry. ie; it is run “Professionally”. Everyone covers up the wrongdoing and everyone makes money. Contrast this to this blog and certain individuals who have attacked John, Ian*, Brian, Andries, Christopher, Sam, David myself and others, in fact anyone who has made a real difference is a target and the idiots and damaged people continue to make false allegations and conquer and divide us all. The Industry must be pissing themselves laughing at you, you do more on a daily basis to give them credibility and prove them right all along. I am almost convinced that social services are right in most cases by some of the comments I read from absolute nutters who are incapable of helping themselves, people I was lucky to screen out before committing to help them.

Today I can proudly say that many children are growing up with their parents because of the work my colleagues have done. I have seen good people give up helping others and I don’t blame them one bit. As long as there are people out there fighting among themselves, the system will always win. The system doesn’t need to Divide & Conquer, you are doing an admirable job of this yourself attacking good people and driving them away. The funny thing is that parents who have been abused by the system, outnumber the system 100:1 and as you wont work together and support people who can ACTUALLY make a difference, you will never win.

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here. I’m not particularly impressed by someone who screens out substance abuse cases as you put it. I think however bad the parent they deserve to have their rights protected.

Joe, I would argue that, contrary to being a divisive force, this blog has provided a valuable forum for those interested in combatting the lies and crimes of those who’ve been pushing the Hampstead ‘SRA’ hoax.

You ask whether John Hemming is responsible for other’s actions. Was that really suggested? Since John had given his name to Sabine and Belinda’s outfit, it would just be due diligence, nay, an ethical housekeeping task to ‘put right’ his mistake, troublesome as that may be, once he became aware of the breaches of confidentiality and of harassment by Sabine and Belinda.

To suggest that John should prefer to keep silent in order to save his reputation is…wrong. It would be arrogant and uncaring of the possible unintended consequences of his actions, once he was made aware, but most of all, inaction was unethical.

Whilst reputation is important, it can easily be destroyed. That is what is happening here, you are right. He used poor judgement by keeping quiet. Well, he can only blame himself when this stuff comes up with his name on it in searches in the future. It’s not like we didn’t ask nicely enough.

If John Hemmings had come out clearly in the first place, and not worried about the wrong thing, i.e his ‘reputation’, or of ‘losing credibility’ or whatever reason was behind his thinking, then we would not be writing about him now. So it was a bad decision, wasn’t it? I propose a proper statement would have the opposite effect to the one you imagine, people appreciate honesty. The overriding and determining factor should be the ethics of the situation. Ego should not come into it.

No in fighting or conspiracy theories here. It is precisely because I despise those that prey on the vulnerable that I keep banging on about John Hemming.

It is a tragedy that he has permitted his energies to be so perverted away from a path that could do anyone any good. Instead he has consistently offered his support to the mad, bad and dangerous and impeded real debate and change for almost a decade now.

It is simply not a question of ‘support JH and change will come!’. As I do not think he is genuinely invested in anything other than his own power.

If he really gave a damn about parents and children who suffer from abuse, do you not think he would be warning people off SmcN and BmcK in the strongest terms? Instead of offering them his name for their letterhead and then attempting to slither silently away when it all got too hot to handle?

Being neither mentally ill or any other kind of fantasist, I am fully aware that no one has ‘appointed’ me to anything.

I have decided myself, as citizen of a country which permits freedom of thought and expression, to shine a light on the activities of people who I know are doing enormous harm to vulnerable people, because I meet them every day in my job.

I have now had many clients in care proceedings who mutter to me that SW are paid £30,000 for each child they steal. That they will not now co-operate with the SW. That they have read Josephs’ website and spoken to him on the phone.

And would you like to take a guess at how successful a strategy this is? Chocolate teapots spring to mind.

but if you don’t want to take my word for it, how about Kellie Cottam? Would you listen to what she said?

My ‘opinion’ counts for exactly the same as everyone else’s – i.e. bugger all UNLESS I can support that opinion by logic, facts and reason.

Which I do. Therefore my ‘opinion’ becomes rather more than simply my words. And I don’t need or wish for your permission or your approval to air it.

@phillimoresarah Can you show me some credible evidence that SW’s are paid £30,000 for each child they steal? Thanks.

If you do actually appear in court for parents, and are given right of audience, I’ve no doubt that social services will produce screenshots of your comments, which don’t do you any favours. I have had this happen to me a few times and been complemented by judges for educating them on case law. I don’t doubt your good intentions, however good intentions and best interests don’t always translate into good outcomes.

It was quite obvious @phillimorearah agreed that SW do not get £30 000 for adoptions or ‘stolen children’. She was repeating what some parents have been told, and is critical of this. Why are you asking for proof? If anyone were to take that paragraph out of its context, they would be misrepresenting the spirit in which it was said. Are you doing that?

For the avoidance of doubt, for anyone else who has difficulties understanding the written word.

I don’t believe SW are paid bonuses to steal children.
I have never believed SW are paid bonuses to steal children.
Since January 2014 I have been blogging/campaigning/organising conferences etc on my own time and money to try and help other people understand this rather basic point.

Joe, first you think this blog believes in SRA and now.. that we believe Social Workers are paid to steal children!
Why don’t you take a look around the different posts and familiarise yourself with it. You won’t find any conspiracy theories here, Only blog posts with evidence.

@John Hemmings: Where have you been publicly critical of Sabine and Ella? To my knowledge you just silently withdrew. But if I missed it and you have been critical of them, please can you indicate where, or better still, detail your concerns here.

Please can you suggest what can be done about rogue Mckenzie friends, child protection issues and risky individuals that may want to become ‘independent’ or unsupervised Mckenzie friends (Paedophiles/fruitloops).

Lastly, what do you think should be done about someone who has already been gagged and bailed, yet still slyly carries on with her online campaign, regardless?

My own view is that I can only go on the information I have at any particular stage. I would not have agreed to be a patron of the organisation had I known what later happened in respect of the Hampstead case. However, that was at a later stage.

@John Hemming Thank you for that. However, not endorsing is not the same as objecting against.

Given that your name has been associated with this case, that you gave your encouragement to, and perhaps even engendered support from people who trusted you, could you be a bit more graphic in your condemnation of Sabine and Belinda’s behaviour please?

In the absence of any active, visible and crystal clear retraction of your continued support for Sabine and Belinda’s conduct over this case, your passive approach could still be misconstrued to be a validation of them.

I am sure some may seek to understand such ambiguity as something other than what you wish it to be.

Just last week John, on her twitter feed, i copied you into one, to alert you, that Sabine was promoting videos originally published in 2012, launching Association of Mckenzie Friends. Clearly still trying to claim credibility, using you, again.
The third video, and fourth, the hollie case is repeatedley inserted into statements by Belinda Mckenzie. @SabineMcneil 29th Nov. are the tweets i refer to.
I heard you say that you had not seen evidence to support the hollie case, which was also proven to be a hoax, Robert Green blatently harrassed people,and admitted it finally, in court, the innocent parties, who even now, still suffer from being mislabelled, in much the same way as the people of Hampstead. Is it true that you thought Robert Green’s sentence, excessive?
Surely, just based on that, and the other cases, that Sabine also revealed confidential reports without permission, must have shown cause for concern, pre hampstead.
I do think it bears a more serious review and statement from you, given the devastation caused, to so many, by two extremely viralised cases, Hollie and Hampstead, and then there are the others, also,viralised, by Belinda and her followers.

In that case, then, why bother seeking out patrons at all? And why bother lending your name to the organisation? Really, if there’s no point to it, it seems like a very silly thing to do.

If, however, the point is to lend an organisation credibility via attachment to a then-sitting MP’s name, I’d say yes, harm was done. The gullible and credulous among us might have presumed, upon seeing that the Association of McKenzie Friends was under the patronage of two sitting MPs, that the organisation was legitimate and trustworthy.

We all know that that presumption would have been an error that could, in the worst case, wind up losing people their children.

“There is no doubt in my mind that the apparent credibility that John Hemming bestowed on The Association of McKenzie Friends through his patronage allowed that group to cause far more damage to child safeguarding generally and specifically in the case of two young children referred to in this judgement HERE, than they might otherwise have done.

While John Hemming was patron of the Association of McKenzie Friends that group enabled the online dissemination of videos of the two children aged 8 and 9 years old. The children had been violently coerced by the mother’s boyfriend, Abraham Christie, into making false statements alleging that scores of innocent people in Hampstead had been involved in a Satanic paedophile ring. The Association of McKenzie Friends were supporting the mother and her boyfriend, both are currently wanted for questioning by the Metropolitan Police.”

Every response from Hemming is a disgrace. His support for these two bloody grifters aided them to fool aggrieved parents into thinking McKenzie & McNeil were legitimate McKenzie Friends when they were a pair of arrogant conspiracy promoters who have done enormous damage to other people’s lives.

Any parent who has suffered under this bogus crew should seek legal advice in whether they can sue all involved including MPs who used their names to promote obvious fraudsters.

Many parents feeling agrieved that Social Workers have removed their children, are loyal to you, and you may not have seen it, but they have certainly kept a tab on their blogs, with your name, even after you dissassociated, and mentioned you often, hence, many people have assumed you backed them and all that they did, many do believe that you backed the hollie case and the hampstead one,
There are videos, of Sabine and Belinda discussing the hampstead case, particularly with Angela Power Disney, which are apalling, in many ways, really show up their attitudes and lack of knowledge, experience, and yet arrogance at the same time, your name is thrown in, All to add to an illusion, that Sabine is desperately tweeting to maintain. There are many vulnerable people, who will cling to any hope, Kellie Cottam, unfortunately woke up too late, I do think a statement from you in the strongest terms, is needed, and it would have perhaps have curtailed their influence, please consider this.

1)’… I do think they have got the wrong end of the stick on the case you refer to…’

2)’…I have advised Sabine McNeill that I think she is wrong about this case….’

3)’…Sabine has done good work on raising issues with the petitions committee of the European Union and that is not the only good thing she has done. On this occasion in my view she got it wrong….’

4)…..Most people understand that if I have withdrawn as a patron (and as I said the way the Hampstead case was handled would have caused me to withdraw as patron if I had not already done so for another reason) then there is nothing more I can do….

I have numbered these responses for convenience

No 1 is ambiguous and not clearly condemnatory, and/or offering alternative, remedial solutions to Sabine and Belinda who you endorsed and thus encouraged in the past, If you made clear suggestions you might have some influence with them and stop suffering as you can influence them more than others, perhaps.

No 2 is ambiguous and not clearly condemnatory, and/or offering alternative, remedial solutions to Sabine and Belinda who you endorsed and thus encouraged in the past, If you made clear suggestions you might have some influence with them and stop suffering as you can influence them more than others, perhaps.

No 3 is negating and minimising any damage done by diverting attention as you highlight work that is not pertinent to the issue at hand.

No 4 There is more that you can do. I and others are asking you to do it here by being clearer in your criticism and offering guidance. You could state much more emphatically what you would like Sabine to do, given that she is still continuing her campaign and harassing innocent people and their families. Do you know what it feels like to be constantly anxious, not being able to go out, fearing something dangerous is about to happen because of some loonies who believe you are eating babies? Do you know what it is like to be called a paedophile?

Please do the decent thing, now, as you have at the very least skirted around your responsibility. Your part in this may have been, to borrow one of Sabine’s phrases, ‘inadvertent’, but you can put try and put that right now.I trust you will accept this opportunity and not offer more of what we have already, above.

It would be great for e.g. if John Hemming was prepared to make a clear announcement on his blog, which he could publicise via Twitter that he does NOT – for example – endorse the advice given by Sabine McNeill, Maggie Tuttle, Belinda McKenzie and Ian Josephs. (I am sure there are some others)

But as I have been asking him to explicitly disassociate himself from Ian Josephs since about 2011, excuse me if I don’t hold my breath.

“They have got the wrong end of the stick”..”I have advised Sabine McNeill that I think she is wrong about this case”.

They accused dozens of people of kidnap, murder, Satanism – many who received death threats – and made their lives a misery. They abused innocent church goers.

Hemming’s use of weasel words to describe one of the most appalling attacks in recent years on innocent people and their children with his blessing – he gave his name & support to these amateurs- indicates his shamelessness.

Nothing wrong with the idea of McKenzie Friends and there are many available to assist and many of them have legal training.
McNeil & McKenzie did not just go “beyond the role”- they organised and encouraged a mob to harass innocent people physically and via the web and accuse them of terrible crimes.

And they still encourage the mob by their silence as does any others who aided them who remain silent.. They could have called off the pitchfork mob ages ago.

>(Sarah Phillimore) I can do no better than quote the wonderful Needle.
That, of course, is opinion and not evidence. You may not know the difference, but the opinion of a blogger that something has probably happened is not evidence of it happening.

John, let’s put things into perspective here. Sabine ran abroad (allegedly tipped off by your office) because she was wanted by the Police. Upon her return, she was arrested and is now on bail and awaiting trial for a number of crimes relating to the Hampstead hoax. She is also a close associate of Belinda McKenzie, a woman who has been struck off by the Charity Commission and who fled abroad after being reported in the press as a charity scammer. Both Sabine and Belinda are subject to a number of court injunctions and were in court last week over another bungled court case. They are also both close associates of Abraham Christie and Ella Draper (child abusers currently on the run abroad), convicted scammer Robert Green and convicted paedophile Brian Pead. Pardon my ignorance here but why the hell are you not screaming from the bloody rooftops that you want nothing to do with McNeill or McKenzie?! You’re a politician and you’re happy to be publicly associated with known criminals and to put a great deal of effort effort into coming here and defending them. Why? Am I missing something?

John Hemming was banned from mumsnet not merely for posting a document on line that named all three of the children of Alessandra Pacchieri but for attempting to out three other members by posting links to their Twitter feeds in their own names.

He then chose to ‘out’ me to the Daily Mail who published my real name and my user name side by side.

this was an attempt to silence me as he thought this would embarrass me. Hahah!

Of course, that didn’t work as I don’t publish anything anywhere that I don’t stand by. If I get something wrong, I apologise. But I am ashamed of nothing.

that is his modus operandi. He uses publicity or the threat of it to shame, embarrass and to increase his own sense of power.

I don’t think he uses it to shine a light on evil injustice, as he would claim.

At the heart of it all, he is simply a bully.

But it is an enormous shame that he appears so lacking in simple decency and humanity that he would not want to do all he could to prevent other vulnerable parents being suckered by the various ghastly people he has championed over the years.

Yes, it’s been very difficult to determine when, or even if, Mr Mitchell disassociated himself from McNeill and McKenzie. We’ve put the question to him, but have received no response to date; if we do, we’ll publish it here.

One thing I would like to say, is, to the best of my recollection, because it appears Sabine has some sort of compulsion to post everything on blogs, I distinctly remember Sabine posting an email where John Hemming was copied in, along with others, and one of the others also included another blogger who also by rights should not have been provided this material, and this was right at the beginning of this case, before things were posted online. This was a “cc” rather than a “bc”. There was John Hemming’s warning signal right there that Sabine couldn’t act with the responsibility expected of an honourable McKenzie Friend.

It isn’t the case that’s wrong, it is what Sabine and others have done. It is an honourable thing to help anyone regardless of your secret feelings about the merits of their case I would have thought. But most McKenzie Friends don’t publish confidential stuff they find out about doing that role. They don’t put in the public domain the names or identifying information of children who are claimed to be the victims of sexual offences,. They don’t do all the stuff Sabine and Belinda have done.

Why would it be a problem to be a McKenzie Friend involved with this case? Even the worst parents deserve decent legal representation.

I don’t think anyone is objecting to McKenzie friend advocacy and help when boundaries of confidentiality and other ethical aspects are maintained. Competent legal representation is necessary and fair in every case. Here I think we are only against the blatant disregard of professional standards of Sabine and Belinda in this and other cases.They are not trained, however and NOT legally competent. A little knowledge here is a very dangerous thing.

BTW this para from the above link from Sabine really shows her intention to publish confidential material because she did what every other professional would avoid: Emotional contagion to undermine the legal process.
.
Sabine:’..Words on paper won’t do it. Even a cynical journalist said so. And a retired constable who sat next to me on my return from Brussels encouraged me big time to expose what is clearly wrong.’

If the Sabine letter at that link is genuine it shows Hemming was far more in McNeil’s camp in the Hampstead matter than he pretends with McNeil’s statement that Hemming inferred that the évidence was being disappeared.

So why is he giving the impression that he distanced himself from Sabine’s actions when it seems pretty clear he only did so because the whole case became too hot and the promoters were lambasted in court. Something Hemming has experience with.

John Hemming could issue a statement to the media to request all McNeil’s & McKenzie’s ratbag followers to back off and for the sake of the children to stop posting their videos. I have Hampstead friends who have close friends & neigbours who are affected by this and they still roam between everything is now OK to sudden depressions about the whole case. I wouldn’t want someone like Hemming to visit them in case he comes across them while they are in their ‘rage’ mode.

I agree, Sam. This letter does seem to indicate that the connection remained, even after Mr Hemming withdrew his official endorsement of B&S. And it would not take a genius to work out that posting inflammatory videos alleging that two children were being horribly victimised might prompt vigilantism.

When you are in a position of power (MP) lending your support to a cause can make an enormous difference. McNeil & McKenzie had history : especially with Belinda McKenzie and her supposed charity that funneled huge sums of money to : well we don’t know do we?

McKenzie & McNeil’s involvement with discredited campaigns like the Hollie Grieg case should have rang warning bells as it was so recent. John Hemming either found like-minded people in these two or did not bother to research them before lending credibility to them. Either way is a unethical manner for an elected representative to operate.

It’s clear from his answers above he still thinks Sabine McNeill did valuable work with her exaggerations about “forced adoptions” in the European parliament. She has done no such thing. She has done the opposite and caused mayhem in many lives and still presents herself as the victim without a single thought for those she has hurt.

John Hemming is no longer MP. Parasites such as Sabine McNeil and Belinda McKenzie look for any credibility to clothe their deceit, and Hemming gave them that veil of respect by his patronage. It would have been simple to check on the internet the backgrounds of those he desired to associate with, and there would have been enough red flags flying if he had been less lazy and stupid to research these maggots.

What I was most shocked about was that in 2012 Ian Josephs gave money to Marie Black to leave the country. She was convicted this summer of numerous charges of child sexual assault, including rape. The charges related to crimes committed prior to 2012. IJ says he doesn’t care what she did.

Bizarrely, I am being sent frequent emails by another of the conspiracy theorists about how this criminal trial was a ‘fix’. She copies me into all sorts of stuff and I can see that emails are going to and from her, Christopher Booker and Ian Josephs.

Hemming has at least had the sense to stay out of that one.

This particular emailer keeps trying to get hold of papers in the criminal proceedings as I think she sees herself preparing an appeal against conviction and sentence for all the defendants?

I guess being possibly mixed up in attempts to pervert the course of justice is too hot to handle for Hemming and he is not joining the party on this one.

But again, his involvement with and support offered to the likes of Ian Josephs and Brian Rothery when he was a serving Member of Parliament, gives them a credibility they don’t deserve.

I find it worrisome that the conspiracy sub-culture has extended its tentacles into Parliament, to be honest. I suppose there’s no reason it shouldn’t, as MPs are just as likely to believe completely implausible things as the next person, but still.

I think your article on Marie Black and the IJ connection was the first piece I read on your blog, and was a real eye-opener about the sainted IJ.

My opinion is, he’s been involved in (at least) one case publicly outing a child as a claimed victim of sexual offences, which applies when the potential crime is reported whether and it doesn’t matter whether this results in a conviction, the right to anonymity still remains, and where a father was accused of being a paedophile despite no conviction and a fact finding hearing clearing him, with publicity conducted by Sabine, that he knew about, and harrassment of the father, sort of a pre run of this case really. What’s the difference between that case and this one? Mr Hemming should be supporting Sabine and Ella Draper going on his past behaviour.

No one could be under any illusion about what Sabine and Belinda stand for. Children are the PROPERTY of their parents. They believe in violence towards children. Belinda even got involved in the sickening spectacle of disrespectfully parading the human remains of a child for dosh. Starchild. Look it up. Then there’s Iran Aid. Hollie Greig. There is also their associations with various convicted sex offenders.

They don’t care in my opinion. This is just the latest cause for two bored, under occupied, frightful, soon to be elderly women, and they really enjoy the conspiracy theory stuff. They’ll be onto the next hot topic soon.

Even Maggie Tuttle started off on campaigning against HRT. She’s also been a victim of fraud, an investment scam, which says something about her ability to discern fact from fiction.